From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:07:32 -0500
Message-ID: <20060117150732.GY1408@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dqj07o$2tl4$1@news.hub.org>
References: <dqigaf$1b98$1@news.hub.org>
<43CCC711.504@familyhealth.com.au>
<dqih4p$1clg$1@news.hub.org>
<m3zmlvq7c9.fsf@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com>
<dqj07o$2tl4$1@news.hub.org>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:38PM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
>about the FSM: You say that increasing the FSM is fairly cheap - how
>should I know that?
Why would you assume otherwise, to the point of not considering changing
the setting?
The documentation explains how much memory is used for FSM entries. If
you look at vacuum verbose output it will tell you how much memory
you're currently using for the FSM.
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20060117150732.GY1408@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox